Bagley v. Blagojevich
| Decision Date | 15 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 05-cv-3156. |
| Citation | 685 F.Supp.2d 904 |
| Parties | Colleen BAGLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rod BLAGOJEVICH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
John A. Baker, Baker Baker & Krajewski LLC, John Edward Kerley, Kerley & Associates PC, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph M. Gagliardo, Lawrence J. Weiner, Heather R.M. Becker, Jeffrey S. Fowler, Laner Muchin Dombrow Becker Levin & Tominberg, James Robert Thompson Jr., Sean G. Wieber, Winston & Strawn LLP, Melissa J. Auerbach, Stephen A. Yokich, Cornfield & Feldman, Chicago, IL for Defendants.
This case began over four years ago when more than 50 Plaintiffs brought suit against state and union officials in two separate actions that are now consolidated. The Plaintiffs, former Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Captains, allege infringement of their First Amendment rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that officials of the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) made large campaign contri- butions to former Governor Rod Blagojevich in exchange for State action to punish the Captains for attempting to organize with a rival labor organization-the Illinois State Employee Association (ISEA). The Plaintiffs allege that the elimination of the Captain Position and subsequent loss of seniority was orchestrated by AFSCME in order to hurt the Plaintiffs.
Over the years, the Plaintiffs have fruitlessly sought to find evidence of a corrupt conspiracy between AFSCME and officials in the administration of former Governor Blagojevich.
After exhaustive discovery, countless delays, and great expense, the Plaintiffs are no closer to their objective than when they began.
The fishing expedition ends today. Summary judgment for the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs were employed as IDOC Captains prior to August 1, 2003. On August 1, 2003 the Captain Position was eliminated.
Rod Blagojevich became Governor of the State of Illinois in January 2003.1 Julie Curry was the Deputy Chief of Staff to Governor Blagojevich, and was responsible for about fifteen State agencies, including IDOC.
Roger E. Walker became the director of IDOC in June of 2003. James Underwood was the Personnel Director of IDOC and Justin Smock was the Assistant Chief of Labor Relations. Curry, Smock, Underwood, and Walker are referred to collectively as the State Officials.
AFSCME's Council 31 represents over 30, 000 employees of the State of Illinois. Henry Bayer is the Executive Director of AFSCME Council 31, and Buddy Maupin is a Regional Director of AFSCME Council 31. Maupin is also AFSCME Council 31's liason to IDOC, and AFSCME represents approximately 10, 000 IDOC employees. Maupin and Bayer are collectively called the AFSCME Officials.
ISEA was affiliated with the Laborers' International Union of North America and, like AFSCME, made significant campaign contributions to Blagojevich's 2002 campaign. In 2002, ISEA made the decision to begin in earnest the campaign to organize the Captains. It appears that card signing was occurring in late 2002 and early 2003, and that papers were filed with the State of Illinois to represent the Captains in early 2003.2
During his gubernatorial campaign Blagojevich promised to eliminate layers of management in state government to save money and increase efficiency.
In early 2003, it appeared that the State of Illinois would run out of funds before the end of the fiscal year. After receiving orders from Governor Blagojevich, Curry directed IDOC and other state agencies to streamline organizational structures.
The decision to eliminate the Captain Position was made before March 2003. In March 2003, the governor's office prepared a proposed budget, effective July 1, 2003, that did not fund the Captain Position.3
On April 17, 2003, Curry met with the AFSCME Officials and informed them that the State would eliminate the Captain Position. Prior to the April 17 meeting, the AFSCME Officials did not have any conversations or any other communications with Curry or any other State Official regarding the elimination of the Captain Position.
The AFSCME Officials never had any conversations with former Governor Blagojevich regarding the elimination of the Captain Position. The AFSCME Officials did not participate in or have any involvement in the decision to eliminate the Captain Position. Furthermore, the AFSCME Officials did not request or encourage the Governor or the State Officials to eliminate the Captain Position. Governor Blagojevich eliminated the Captain Position through a line item veto.
IDOC planned to promote a limited number of the eliminated Captains, while offering the rest either layoff or demotion to lower ranks, primarily to Lieutenant or Correction Officer. The State Officials believed that the State would save money by moving former Captains to vacant Lieutenant and Correction Officer positions, because the demoted Captains were already fully trained for the lower-level positions.
After the April 17 meeting, IDOC informed AFSCME that some former Captains would be demoted to Lieutenant. This decision could have adversely affected AFSCME members who were striving to be promoted to Lieutenant. AFSCME launched a campaign to persuade the Governor and the State Officials that the Captains should not be offered lower jobs within the bargaining unit.
AFSCME filed a grievance on May 28, 2003, complaining of the filling of the Lieutenant Positions with former Captains. The Governor and the State Officials did not accept the AFSCME position and the matter eventually went to arbitration, where the Blagojevich Administration prevailed over AFSCME in September 2003.
In July 2003, IDOC informed AFSCME that Captains who accepted demotion to Correction Officer would be given credit for past service in the collective bargaining unit before their earlier promotions. At a labor management meeting on July 16, 2003, Bayer stated that the intent of the contract language was clear that Captains should not get seniority credit for past service in the R-6 bargaining unit.4
The master contract provided:
Seniority for RC-6 and 9 shall, for the purposes stated in this Agreement, consist of the length of service of an employee with their department in an AFSCME bargaining unit(s), except when a previously excluded position enters a bargaining unit pursuant to labor board procedures, seniority for an employee in that position shall consist of the employee's total length of service with their department.
AFSCME interpreted "length of service" as "continuous length of service," while the State interpreted it to include noncontinu- ous periods of service within the bargaining unit.
AFSCME filed a grievance regarding the State's decision to award seniority to demoted Captains. The grievance was handled by the Department of Central Management Services (CMS), because all available recourse with IDOC had already been exhausted. CMS decided in November 2003 that the State's position was not viable, and the grievance was resolved by denying the former Captains any credit for previous service within the bargaining unit.
Two groups of former Captains then filed suit against the Defendants in 2005. The two actions have since been consolidated into the current case before the Court.
In October 2008, the Court granted a protective order to then Governor Blagojevich, prohibiting the Plaintiffs from deposing him [d/e 135]. The Court found that Blagojevich enjoyed legislative immunity because the Captain Position was eliminated through a line-item veto. The Court blocked the Plaintiffs from deposing Blagojevich about the seniority issue because they had proffered no evidence that he was involved in that decision.
In the same order, the Court granted a protective order to Julie Curry, limiting the scope of her deposition. The Plaintiffs were blocked from seeking discovery on four areas of Curry's work with Governor Blagojevich on legislative matters.5
On February 20, 2009, the Court granted former Governor Blagojevich summary judgment on both claims—the elimination of the Captain Position and the denial of seniority [d/e 141]. The Court granted summary judgment on the elimination of the Captain Position because of legislative immunity, and Blagojevich prevailed on the seniority claim because the Plaintiffs could not provide any evidence linking him to that decision.
"Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence submitted, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows 'no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Smith v. Hope School, 560 F.3d 694, 699 (7th Cir.2009) ().
In order to survive summary judgment there must be sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 406-407 (7th Cir.2009) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
"A motion for summary judgment requires the responding party to come forward with the evidence that it has-it is the 'put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit." Eberts v. Goderstad, 569 F.3d 757, 767 (7th Cir.2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Although inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, inferences relying on speculation or conjecture are insufficient. Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir.2009).
The Plaintiffs have argued that a more lenient standard applies to them with regard to producing evidence to survive summary judgment. In addition, the Plaintiffs have cited a wide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gagliardi v. Equifax Info.
...5 U.S. 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)(emphasis added). A lay jury cannot be asked to decide legal questions. Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F.Supp.2d 904, 912 (C.D.Ill. 2010). The Seventh Amendment requires that a jury "be allowed to make reasonable inferences from facts proven in evidence having ......
-
Bagley v. Blagojevich
...“unsuccessfully attempted to tie the Court's earlier decision regarding Blagojevich's immunity to all Defendants.” Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F.Supp.2d 904, 911 (C.D.Ill.2010). The court noted: The fact that a governor enjoys legislative immunity for making a line item veto in a budget bill......
- Kinsella v. Am. Airlines Inc
-
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich
...the government, but do not provide immunity to individuals who are accused of bribing government officials." Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F. Supp. 2d 904, 910 (C.D. Ill. 2010), aff'd on other grounds, 646 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2011). Although the Seventh Circuit has not applied the Noerr-Penning......
-
Immunities
...2d 734, 744 n.10 (E.D. La. 1999) (observing that there is no exception to Noerr-Pennington for bribery), with Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F. Supp. 2d 904, 910 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (“The First Amendment protections enshrined in the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine protect those petitioning the governmen......
-
Table of Cases
...Board, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), 360 Babyage.com, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 2008 WL 2746302 (E.D. Pa. 2008), 188 Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F. Supp. 2d 904 (C.D. Ill. 2010), 380 Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2009 WL 2872307 (S.D. Miss. 2009), 163 Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., 2......
-
Chapter VI. Immunities
...734, 744 n.10 (E.D. La. 1999) (observing that there is no exception to Noerr-Pennington for bribery). But see Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F. Supp. 2d 904, 910 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (“The First Amendment protections enshrined in the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine protect those petitioning the governmen......
-
Table of Cases
...2746302 (E.D. Pa. 2008), 232 Babyage.com, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 558 F. Supp. 2d 575 (E.D. Pa. 2008), 201 Bagley v. Blagojevich, 685 F. Supp. 2d 904 (C.D. Ill. 2010), 327 Bailey v. Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2002), 280 Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 200......